terminal_write

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: it sends literal text without an implicit Enter, which is not captured by the annotations. It also highlights the need for a lease_id. Since annotations only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, this extra context adds meaningful transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two compact sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with the primary action, it effectively communicates the core behavior and a critical alternative in a well-structured manner.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, submission method, and a prerequisite. However, it omits explanations for alias and pane_id, leaving some ambiguity in optional parameters. Overall, it is adequate for a basic write operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that text is literal text and that lease_id is required, but leaves alias and pane_id completely unexplained. With four parameters, this is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate all fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Send literal text to a terminal." It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting no implicit Enter and referencing terminal_key(ENTER) for submission, making the tool's purpose clear and unique.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives by stating "Use terminal_key(ENTER) to submit," which directs the agent to a specific sibling tool for key input. It also includes a prerequisite (Requires lease_id), but does not explicitly mention other exclusions or contexts.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.